Key result
Biosimilar alteplase Revelisa yields favorable 90-day functional recovery in ~66% of ischemic stroke patients.
Why the study?
Thrombolytic therapy with alteplase within 4.5 hours is the most effective treatment for ischemic stroke, but real-world safety and efficacy data for the biosimilar Revelisa are needed.
Does intravenous thrombolytic therapy with the alteplase biosimilar Revelisa safely and effectively improve clinical and neurological outcomes in patients with acute ischemic stroke in real-world practice?
Observational (n=1,181)
Yes
Does intravenous thrombolytic therapy with the alteplase biosimilar Revelisa safely and effectively improve clinical and neurological outcomes in patients with acute ischemic stroke in real-world practice?
In real-world practice, the biosimilar alteplase demonstrated safety and efficacy profiles consistent with established registry data for the reference drug in treating acute ischemic stroke.
Revelisa shows favorable real-world stroke outcomes; supports biosimilar adoption but leaves randomized equivalence open.
Thrombolytic therapy (TLT) of ischemic stroke (IS) with alteplase within the first 4.5 hours from the onset of symptoms is the most effective and proven method of treatment. Objective: to evaluate the safety and efficacy of TLT with Revelisa (alteplase) in IS in real-world clinical practice. Material and methods. The results of TLT with Revelisa were analyzed in 1181 patients with IS: 616 (52.2%) women and 565 (47.8%) men (mean age 68.28±12.56 years), of which 140 (11.9%) with staged reperfusion. The mean time from disease onset to TLT was 2.58±0.83 hours. The Heidelberg classification was used to assess hemorrhages during neuroimaging. Symptomatic hemorrhagic transformation (HT) was defined according to ECASS III criteria. The study group was characterized by high comorbidity: arterial hypertension (96.9%), ischemic heart disease (56.7%), chronic heart failure (55.8%) and cardiac arrhythmias (33.3%) were most common; diabetes mellitus was present in 23% of patients. IS occurred repeatedly in 15.4% of cases. Results. An improvement of 4 points or more on the NIHSS scale one day after TLT was observed in 41% of patients. The dynamics of the decrease in neurological symptoms one day later and at the time of discharge were statistically significant (p<0.001). The hospital mortality rate for the entire group was 8%, for the TLT group without endovascular intervention 5.6%. Twenty-nine patients (2.46%) had symptomatic HT, 14 of whom underwent endovascular intervention. The proportion of patients with a favorable clinical outcome (0–2 points on the modified Rankin scale) at discharge and at day 90 was 50.1% and 65.5%, respectively. Conclusion. The results of the PRIMA study confirm the high level of efficacy and safety of Revelisa in patients with IS, including during staged reperfusion. The data obtained are consistent with the published registry studies on alteplase in IS.><0.001). The hospital mortality rate for the entire group was 8%, for the TLT group without endovascular intervention 5.6%. Twenty-nine patients (2.46%) had symptomatic HT, 14 of whom underwent endovascular intervention. The proportion of patients with a favorable clinical outcome (0–2 points on the modified Rankin scale) at discharge and at day 90 was 50.1% and 65.5%, respectively. Conclusion. The results of the PRIMA study confirm the high level of efficacy and safety of Revelisa in patients with IS, including during staged reperfusion. The data obtained are consistent with the published registry studies on alteplase in IS.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shamalov et al. (2025) conducted an observational in Ischemic Stroke (n=1,181). Revelisa (alteplase) was evaluated on Favorable clinical outcome (0–2 points on the modified Rankin scale) at day 90. Thrombolytic therapy with Revelisa resulted in a favorable clinical outcome (mRS 0-2) in 50.1% of ischemic stroke patients at discharge and 65.5% at 90 days in routine clinical practice.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: